Aint No Right

Politics

Re: Politics

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:38 am

by Juana

Yeah Beto actually went to every county in the state and talked to everyone including people that were going to vote against him. The problem is he mentioned "gun control" in a state that well there's likely more guns than people, so that really did him in.

Re: Politics

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:15 am

by Hype

Think of Beto v. Cruz as a test-run for Beto 2020 for Prez... He'll almost certainly be one of the candidates (or a VP pick for someone like Corey Booker).

Re: Politics

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:16 pm

by Juana

I agree and do not be surprised if you see one of the Castro brothers in the mix either

Re: Politics

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:19 pm

by Juana

Julian is already talking about running in 2020 and this all was a run to start his campaign, if you think Beto was popular Julian is even more so at least in TX and he already has national exposure when he left being mayor to serve in Obama's cabinet. 2020 will be interesting. Until then at least the house flipped.

Re: Politics

Yup; he is. I almost put up Michelle, but I believe her when she says she won't run. My omission was because he'd been mentioned and I don't like him. And yes,

Beto

Just as I predicted for Clinton (who I preferred over Obama in the run-up to 2008), I feel like I need to reassert the very same claim that I made back then: the United States is racist, but it is still more misogynist. As great as many of the current crop of Democratic women leaders are (Kirsten Gillibrand is awesome, Warren is impeccable, etc), put up against Trump, they will lose, even though they shouldn't. But a light-skinned, Ivy-educated black dude with balls like Booker will have an advantage, especially if vying for the nomination against Bernie. I realize race and gender shouldn't be playing a role in this at all, and all things considered, I'd prefer a far-left candidate (further left than Sanders). But in the spirit of unseating an incumbent President with an insane populist base? ... I have to go with a democratic quasi-sociopath centrist man.

“No," he said about Harris. "Love her. No, not going to happen. Cory — love him. No. We cannot run a politician against [Trump]. We will lose.”

I'll admit that Moore is an opportunist, but he was right about Trump very early on, and he is right about 2020.

With the electoral college, if rural issues, such as quality jobs, quality healthcare, addressing the opioid crisis and quality education for the rural working class isn't addressed; Trump will win in 2020. He doesn't give a damn about those issues, but he's a mouthpiece for the fear and anger of being left behind. Somehow make those issues provocatively dramatic and democrats have something. Lip service from Democrats in Washington isn't going to cut it. Someone from outside or just arrived who loves limelight and knows how to handle the media has to step up. Barrack Obama was a perfect example in 2008. It's not that specific issues aren't being addressed (even though they are not), it's the emotion of being left behind that people are voting on.

Trump is a master manipulator and somehow many Democrats and most of the media still don't get it, they take the bait every time. Actually, more concerning is that I think big media totally gets it... they have a stake in this as well, mayhem is their bread and butter. Policy is boring.

Kanye 2024

Re: Politics

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:25 pm

by Hype

Michael Moore isn't a sage. And Fox's use of him just indicates their fear that Trump is actually destroying their previously ascendant power. They're weak because their core demographic dies sooner than any other.

Bannon himself, by the way, has been going around saying that the "choice" is between populist nationalism or populist socialism. This is a false dichotomy, and it is fucking dangerous. It just isn't true.

Re: Politics

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:03 pm

by mockbee

We've had celebrity candidates win every presidential election, with the exeption of HW Bush, for the last 40 years. Why would that change now? If anything, it is just astronomically more imperative to be a celebrity. If Democrats put up boring policy person or person who does not dominate the media game, they will lose.

Not speaking to populist platform above of course. But Bernie is almost a populist, his credo is approaching anti-corporate and anti-globalist. I think that's what really piqued the interest of not on left coast/east coast/college campus.
Dems can't run their typical campaign. Globalization is not working for a lot of people. Middle America isn't going to spring for an all out "european" democratic socialist platform, but many of the policies would be well received. I think a lot like the ACA if that makes sense. The delivery and bravado is key.
I'd say the best scenario is run as a leftist populist and govern as a democratic socialist.

Re: Politics

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:48 pm

by mockbee

Even then, I don't really see how that works. People are fed up. Yeah, populism is dangerous, but I really don't see how we avoid an elitist backlash with people being more and more squeezed.

I really don't see a wave of pragmatism sweeping the nation. Maybe the view is different from up there.

Re: Politics

Yup; he is. I almost put up Michelle, but I believe her when she says she won't run. My omission was because he'd been mentioned and I don't like him. And yes,

Beto

Just as I predicted for Clinton (who I preferred over Obama in the run-up to 2008), I feel like I need to reassert the very same claim that I made back then: the United States is racist, but it is still more misogynist. As great as many of the current crop of Democratic women leaders are (Kirsten Gillibrand is awesome, Warren is impeccable, etc), put up against Trump, they will lose, even though they shouldn't. But a light-skinned, Ivy-educated black dude with balls like Booker will have an advantage, especially if vying for the nomination against Bernie. I realize race and gender shouldn't be playing a role in this at all, and all things considered, I'd prefer a far-left candidate (further left than Sanders). But in the spirit of unseating an incumbent President with an insane populist base? ... I have to go with a democratic quasi-sociopath centrist man.

The US just elected a record number of women to congress. That isn't to say we aren't more mysogonistic than racist, but we'll never know, though I tend to disagree. Polling suggests that people who state they will vote for a woman, will...and those who state they'll vote for a black candidate, will not. Too, voter suppression efforts are accomplished in plain sight and universally targeted at the black vote, only half of which are women. I think a light skinned woman with balls may have a real shot; Kamala is flawed, but I think a strong choice. She is more than able to field trump's ad hominems. The elecrtoral college has something to say here as we learned yet again in '16. Popular votes favored a woman by 3 million votes. Warren scares me. Because of the populist/nationalist tendemcies that helped trump to the throne, she would be red meat for trump in a campaign. And it shouldn't be forgotton that our racism extends well beyond those who reside here.

“No," he said about Harris. "Love her. No, not going to happen. Cory — love him. No. We cannot run a politician against [Trump]. We will lose.”

I'll admit that Moore is an opportunist, but he was right about Trump very early on, and he is right about 2020.

With the electoral college, if rural issues, such as quality jobs, quality healthcare, addressing the opioid crisis and quality education for the rural working class isn't addressed; Trump will win in 2020. He doesn't give a damn about those issues, but he's a mouthpiece for the fear and anger of being left behind. Somehow make those issues provocatively dramatic and democrats have something. Lip service from Democrats in Washington isn't going to cut it. Someone from outside or just arrived who loves limelight and knows how to handle the media has to step up. Barrack Obama was a perfect example in 2008. It's not that specific issues aren't being addressed (even though they are not), it's the emotion of being left behind that people are voting on.

Trump is a master manipulator and somehow many Democrats and most of the media still don't get it, they take the bait every time. Actually, more concerning is that I think big media totally gets it... they have a stake in this as well, mayhem is their bread and butter. Policy is boring.

Kanye 2024

Trump's base is shrinking. That is a fact. But I also think another sector with the same issues will ascend to replace it. Yuval Harari mentions this in Sapiens....the useless class. Sooner, rather than later simply stating that coal jobs and Blockbuster will return will cease to pass the acid test. The reality is that the obsolete worker will continue to grow, and they can't be lied to forever. What you label celebrity is really charisma and though it will remain a requisite characteristic, it will have to be paired with strength and compassion (and real leadership). As for the remaining base trump maintains, they'll follow him no matter the dischord and repulsive bs he vomits. Ok, but two years won't make a huge difference. He just demonstrated he can turn out huge numbers in the mids.

Re: Politics

Even then, I don't really see how that works. People are fed up. Yeah, populism is dangerous, but I really don't see how we avoid an elitist backlash with people being more and more squeezed.

I really don't see a wave of pragmatism sweeping the nation. Maybe the view is different from up there.

You do it by removing fear. Obama was exceptionally good at this, despite the bigot backlash from like, the KKK, and people who are going to be angry no matter what happens. But a significant amount of the anger that motivates protest voting is manipulated (by Facebook, by Fox, etc). And it can be destroyed. The Democrats have just been struggling to figure out how to do that with 70 year old candidates. Trump succeeded because of a carefully orchestrated campaign (not his own doing, but Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Sheldon Adelson, and almost certainly Russian money and influence), and he couldn't even get a majority of the votes -- so they had to game the electoral college in a way that the Democrats weren't prepared for. They should be prepared for it now.

I think it's a mistake to think enough Democrats will vote for Sanders in 2020, over a sitting President (even one as stupid and gross as DJT).

Don't forget that four years is long enough for a lot of people at the beginning and end of their voting lives to turn 18 or die.

Re: Politics

Even then, I don't really see how that works. People are fed up. Yeah, populism is dangerous, but I really don't see how we avoid an elitist backlash with people being more and more squeezed.

I really don't see a wave of pragmatism sweeping the nation. Maybe the view is different from up there.

You do it by removing fear. Obama was exceptionally good at this, despite the bigot backlash from like, the KKK, and people who are going to be angry no matter what happens. But a significant amount of the anger that motivates protest voting is manipulated (by Facebook, by Fox, etc). And it can be destroyed. The Democrats have just been struggling to figure out how to do that with 70 year old candidates. Trump succeeded because of a carefully orchestrated campaign (not his own doing, but Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Sheldon Adelson, and almost certainly Russian money and influence...and Brad Parscale), and he couldn't even get a majority of the votes -- so they had to game the electoral college in a way that the Democrats weren't prepared for. They should be prepared for it now.

I think it's a mistake to think enough Democrats will vote for Sanders in 2020, over a sitting President (even one as stupid and gross as DJT).

Don't forget that four years is long enough for a lot of people at the beginning and end of their voting lives to turn 18 or die.

Re: Politics

I'll admit that Moore is an opportunist, but he was right about Trump very early on, and he is right about 2020.

With the electoral college, if rural issues, such as quality jobs, quality healthcare, addressing the opioid crisis and quality education for the rural working class isn't addressed; Trump will win in 2020. He doesn't give a damn about those issues, but he's a mouthpiece for the fear and anger of being left behind. Somehow make those issues provocatively dramatic and democrats have something. Lip service from Democrats in Washington isn't going to cut it. Someone from outside or just arrived who loves limelight and knows how to handle the media has to step up. Barrack Obama was a perfect example in 2008. It's not that specific issues aren't being addressed (even though they are not), it's the emotion of being left behind that people are voting on.

Trump is a master manipulator and somehow many Democrats and most of the media still don't get it, they take the bait every time. Actually, more concerning is that I think big media totally gets it... they have a stake in this as well, mayhem is their bread and butter. Policy is boring.

Kanye 2024

Trump's base is shrinking. That is a fact. But I also think another sector with the same issues will ascend to replace it. Yuval Harari mentions this in Sapiens....the useless class. Sooner, rather than later simply stating that coal jobs and Blockbuster will return will cease to pass the acid test. The reality is that the obsolete worker will continue to grow, and they can't be lied to forever. What you label celebrity is really charisma and though it will remain a requisite characteristic, it will have to be paired with strength and compassion (and real leadership). As for the remaining base trump maintains, they'll follow him no matter the dischord and repulsive bs he vomits. Ok, but two years won't make a huge difference. He just demonstrated he can turn out huge numbers in the mids.

I'm not concerned about Trumps base, it's the fact that his overall support has expanded. Trumps approval ratings are right in line with Reagan, Obama and Clinton at this point in their presidencies. That is terrifying.

Re: Politics

Even then, I don't really see how that works. People are fed up. Yeah, populism is dangerous, but I really don't see how we avoid an elitist backlash with people being more and more squeezed.

I really don't see a wave of pragmatism sweeping the nation. Maybe the view is different from up there.

You do it by removing fear. Obama was exceptionally good at this, despite the bigot backlash from like, the KKK, and people who are going to be angry no matter what happens. But a significant amount of the anger that motivates protest voting is manipulated (by Facebook, by Fox, etc). And it can be destroyed. The Democrats have just been struggling to figure out how to do that with 70 year old candidates. Trump succeeded because of a carefully orchestrated campaign (not his own doing, but Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Sheldon Adelson, and almost certainly Russian money and influence), and he couldn't even get a majority of the votes -- so they had to game the electoral college in a way that the Democrats weren't prepared for. They should be prepared for it now.

I think it's a mistake to think enough Democrats will vote for Sanders in 2020, over a sitting President (even one as stupid and gross as DJT).

Don't forget that four years is long enough for a lot of people at the beginning and end of their voting lives to turn 18 or die.

I agree with most everything you are saying, except for the part about Democrats being prepared. I don't think they are. I think the Party is still quite ignorant about what is going on. They got stupidly lucky with Obama. We can only hope they get so lucky again for 2020.

I think Sanders running in 2020 would be ridiculous.

Also, to frame trump as the old white guy candidate is a mistake. It means that Dems (or opposition) are not taking seriously why the non-racist's vote for him. And if the opposition believes that anyone who would consider voting for Trump is a racist/bigot, then that is an even bigger problem. Trump is on track for reelection, calling 40-50% of the population racists and bigots doesn't help.

Re: Politics

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:31 pm

by Hype

I can see how someone who isn't racist might have voted for an already racist candidate. But I can't see how anyone who isn't racist could vote for him again and still not be racist. Voting for Trump in 2020 will be a racist act whether anyone likes it or not. Listen to Steve Bannon. Whether this "helps" or not is irrelevant. It needs to be said.

Re: Politics

I can see how someone who isn't racist might have voted for an already racist candidate. But I can't see how anyone who isn't racist could vote for him again and still not be racist. Voting for Trump in 2020 will be a racist act whether anyone likes it or not. Listen to Steve Bannon. Whether this "helps" or not is irrelevant. It needs to be said.

Agree with the former and it already applies to the gop in congress. As for the former, if they did so knowingly I do not see how they could have done it.